Truth, Justice and Dignity: Two decades on, justice reaches Darfur with the Abd-al Rahman conviction
The Chamber found Mr. Abd-al Rahman guilty on 27 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder, rape, torture, persecution, and attacks against civilians committed between 2003 and 2004. Sentencing will follow.
“The evidence given by the many innocent civilians, mainly from the Fur tribe, who were victims of the grave and undisputed crimes, has revealed the suffering they underwent at the time, which still continues to-day. This trial has for the first time allowed them a voice with which to inform the world of what happened to them as a result of this conflict” (§1 of the Summary of Trial Chamber I’s Judgment in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Ali Muhammed Ali Abd-Al-Rahman, hereinafter the “Summary of the verdict”). This verdict stands as a solemn affirmation that the countless lives lost and scarred during Darfur’s darkest years have not been forgotten, and that the voices of survivors, heard in court for the first time, carry global resonance.
The case against Ali Kushayb: Justice two decades in the making
“Justice may arrive late, but for Darfur’s victims, it still matters. This verdict is a long-awaited step toward accountability and a reminder that impunity is not permanent,” underlined the Darfur Network for Human Rights (DNHR).
The judgement delivered by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on 6 October 2025 concerns crimes committed between August 2003 and March 2004 in Darfur, Sudan, when the Sudanese government and allied Janjaweed militias launched coordinated attacks against the Fur, Zaghawa, and Masalit communities. The Chamber described these assaults as the execution of a state-led Emergency Plan, “the ‘blueprint’ for the commission of the crimes” (§7 of the Summary of the verdict), designed to target non-Arab groups perceived as sympathetic to rebel movements.
The accused, Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman, was at the time a senior Janjaweed commander in the Wadi Salih and Mukjar localities of West Darfur. After examining extensive testimonial, documentary, and forensic evidence, ICC Trial Chamber I found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a range of atrocities amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The Chamber found that the accused was guilty as a direct perpetrator for murder and torture as crimes against humanity and war crimes, as well as outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime and persecution as a crime against humanity. He was further found guilty as a co-perpetrator, acting jointly with Janjaweed and Government of Sudan forces, for the murder, attempted murder, and torture of at least 200 captives and detainees during the Mukjar and Deleig operations, which equated to war crimes and crimes against humanity, in addition to outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, and persecution as a crime against humanity.
In addition, the Chamber held him responsible for ordering and inciting the Janjaweed during the Kodoom and Bindisi operations to carry out murder and rape as war crimes and crimes against humanity; attacks against the civilian population; pillaging and destruction of property; and for the forcible transfer of population, persecution, and other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity. Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman encouraged and issued instructions that led to killings, rapes, and the destruction of entire communities, rallying his forces with “exhortations to ‘wipe out and sweep away’ or ‘don’t leave anyone behind and bring no-one alive’.” (§82 of the Summary of the verdict).
The judgment is also a landmark for delivering the ICC’s first conviction for persecution on gender grounds. The Chamber determined that men from the Fur community were specifically targeted on the basis of their ethnic, political, and gender identity, recognising that "a victim can suffer a higher risk of victimisation because of the intersection of different factors of discrimination" (§ 787 of the Trial Judgment, ICC-02/05-01/20-1240).
This case forms part of the Darfur situation, the first ever referred to the ICC by the United Nations Security Council (Resolution 1593, 2005), a landmark assertion of international jurisdiction over crimes in a non-State Party. On 6 June 2005, the ICC prosecutor officially opened an investigation into crimes under the Rome Statute allegedly committed in Darfur since 1 July 2002.
On 27 April 2007, Pre-Trial Chamber I issued a first arrest warrant against Mr Abd–Al-Rahman. On 11 June 2020, Pre-Trial Chamber II reclassified as public a second warrant of arrest. On 9 June 2020, Mr Abd–Al-Rahman was transferred to the ICC’s custody after surrendering himself voluntarily in the Central African Republic. His trial opened on 5 April 2022 and closing statements took place on 11 - 13 December 2024.
The judgement, delivered two decades after the referral, “is a crucial step towards closing the impunity gap in Darfur. It sends a resounding message to perpetrators of atrocities in Sudan, both past and present, that justice will prevail, and that they will be held accountable for inflicting unspeakable suffering on Darfuri civilians, men, women and children,” said ICC Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan.
Justice in The Hague, Echoes in Darfur: Why this judgement matters
“This trial marks a significant step toward justice and accountability for the countless victims who suffered atrocities during the conflict in Darfur,” affirms the Zarga Organisation for Rural Development (ZORD). “International criminal justice is not an end in itself, but a foundation for lasting peace and genuine reconciliation in Sudan—one that is rooted in recognition of victims’ suffering and guarantees of non-recurrence.”
“The guilty verdict marks a major milestone and the culmination of years of tireless advocacy by Darfuri victims and their allies. Despite a well-documented history of serious violations in Sudan, Kushayb is the first commander to be held accountable for international crimes committed in Darfur. While far more remains to be done to dismantle Sudan’s entrenched culture of impunity, this judgement is a momentous, unprecedented step in that direction,” highlighted Caitlan Lloyd, Legal Officer at REDRESS.
“The ICC’s long-awaited landmark conviction for serious crimes in Darfur provides the first opportunity for victims and communities terrorized by the Janjaweed to see a measure of justice before the court,” said Liz Evenson, international justice director at Human Rights Watch. “With the current conflict in Sudan producing new generations of victims and compounding the suffering of those targeted in the past, the verdict should spur action by governments to advance justice by all possible means.”
The judgement in The Prosecutor v. Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman is more than a ruling against a single perpetrator; it is a judicial reckoning with a state-engineered system of organised brutality. The Chamber’s findings expose the deliberate and coordinated nature of the attacks in Kodoom, Bindisi, Mukjar, and Deleig, villages razed, civilians executed, and women and girls subjected to systematic sexual violence.
By recognising that these crimes were committed “on political, ethnic and gender grounds,” the Chamber has established a critical precedent: this is the first conviction at the ICC for gender-based persecution. The decision also affirms that persecution in Darfur was not incidental but integral to a broader campaign to eradicate entire communities perceived as disloyal to the Sudanese government.
The Chamber’s deliberate inclusion of direct testimony of victims, especially of P-1073, who was only 15 years old, acknowledges the continuing psychological and social scars of such violence.
For civil society and survivors, this verdict represents both vindication and warning: vindication that the cycle of impunity, however entrenched, can be broken; and warning that justice remains incomplete while other ICC arrest warrants, most notably those against former President Omar al-Bashir and others, remain unexecuted.
The road ahead: Arrest warrants, cooperation and the cost of delay
“The culture of impunity has been entrenched in the Sudanese justice system for decades, due to a lack of political will, weak judicial institutions, and a lack of independence and integrity. Consequently, victims of violations and crimes against international law have remained without justice and have never seen their perpetrators brought to justice,” warned Mossaad Mohamed Ali, Executive Director of the African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies (ACJPS). “Given this judicial vacuum in Sudan, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has come to fill this gap, particularly in Darfur. Despite the complexities of international criminal justice, such as lengthy proceedings, the Darfur case has dragged on for twenty years without those wanted, such as former President Omar al-Bashir and others, appearing before the court. Nor has compensation or redress been provided to victims.”
The pursuit of justice for Darfur has faced persistent obstacles that continue to undermine accountability for grave international crimes in the region and in other situations under ICC investigation. Chief among these challenges is the chronic lack of cooperation from States, particularly in executing ICC arrest warrants.
Despite the clear mandate set out in Resolution 1593, which urges all “[UN Member] States and concerned regional and other international organizations to cooperate fully” with the Court, Sudan has consistently failed to cooperate, notwithstanding it being “a legal obligation to transfer these suspects to the ICC to stand trial, unless it can demonstrate to the Judges of the ICC that it is willing and able to genuinely prosecute them for the same cases.”
Two decades after the events at issue, the continued absence of key suspects before the Court stands as a stark reminder that justice delayed is justice denied. This “verdict carries particular weight because the case stands alone. Though the ICC issued arrest warrants for other architects of the Darfur genocide, including former Sudanese president Omar al Bashir, who is currently held under military custody in the north, so far, it is only Abd-al-Rahman who has been tried,” as stated by Journalists for Justice.
“Although the judgement provides a glimmer of hope, it is also a sobering moment for reflection. Two decades after the events at issue, the Darfuri communities victimised by Kushayb and his affiliates are once again the targets of systematic, discriminatory violence – perpetrated by essentially the same armed groups, led by many of the same actors,” stated REDRESS’s Caitlan Lloyd. “To address the root causes of armed conflict across the country, you first need to understand the drivers of past violence in Darfur and the inadequacies of States’ responses to it. Decision makers should now study the Kushayb judgement closely and reflect on how past approaches to peacemaking may have inadvertently fueled relentless cycles of atrocities – including the violence we see today in Darfur and across the country.”
Justice for Darfur is justice for humanity
“Looking further afield, it is no secret that the ICC is facing unprecedented threats to its very existence. In this context, the Kushayb judgement is a pertinent reminder of what is at stake. Without the Court, victims in Darfur would likely still be waiting years for even a modicum of justice. For many victims in Darfur and around the world, the ICC is a last hope – that even after decades of impunity, the international justice system is watching and wherever possible, will act,” underscored REDRESS’s Caitlan Lloyd.
Darfuri activists and local human rights groups have tirelessly campaigned for accountability, demanding that perpetrators face trial and calling on “the international community [to] cooperate with the International Court unconditionally in accordance with the rules of the Rome Statute and support the Court financially and technically. It must also refrain from threatening or punishing members of the Court or the Office of the Prosecutor, as the United States and Israel have done. The international community, especially the members of the Rome Statute, must cooperate in facilitating the extradition of those wanted in the Darfur case,” highlighted Mossaad Mohamed Ali. Furthermore, for civil society in Darfur, “the road ahead must focus on three interconnected priorities: truth, justice, and dignity for the victims of Darfur”, emphasised Mohammed Hassan.
The verdict affirms that justice can reach even the most remote and devastated corners of conflict. It demonstrates that accountability, though complex and painstaking, is essential to peace and reconciliation in Sudan and beyond. The Coalition for the International Criminal Court pays tribute to the victims and witnesses whose courage made this case possible, to the human rights defenders who have pursued justice against all odds, and to those within and outside the Court who continue to uphold the principles of truth and accountability.
As the world reflects on this judgement, the Coalition renews its call for unwavering cooperation with the ICC and for sustained political and financial support for its mandate. Only through such collective resolve can international law realise its most essential promise: that no one, regardless of rank, power, or position, stands above justice.
